RE: Your Thoughts On Art
April 8, 2019 at 7:58 am
(This post was last modified: April 8, 2019 at 8:03 am by Alan V.)
(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: That's something this thread has suggested to me -- the idea of relating to paintings.
And here I'm not necessarily talking about relating to the characters in the paintings, although there may be a little of that. (For example, the characters in the TV sitcom The Big Bang Show are completely unrelatable to me. But this may be less to do with their presented personalities than with the fact that the show itself is cliched and stylized in a way that I don't enjoy. It's comfortable for people who are used to that whole style, but for me its extreme stylization and distance from how real people behave comes across as more artificial than Kabuki.)
I enjoy The Big Bang Theory because both a close friend and my wife are nerds, although less exaggerated. But that's humor for you -- like Kabuki.
(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: Anyway, what I mean is that when people on this thread have pointed to the pictures they like, it seems to be with more than just ranking qualities. There is some personal and felt connection. So your connection to the Mona Lisa (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong) gives me the impression that you feel something for that painting -- you value it, you want others to see its value, and you might be irked if someone called it worthless.
When we read novels, we want relatable characters because otherwise we don't care what happens to them. I am not bothered by people not liking the Mona Lisa because I can understand why. It's just such a strange picture that unless you connect with the person portrayed, you may not get it.
(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: And, maybe I'm imagining, but when people say they despise Jackson Pollock or somebody else, there seems to be some emotion in there. I mean, we can all agree, probably, that the Kardashians are over-rated and don't deserve their money, but the fact that Pollock is held up as worthy offends us more, I think. (Despite the fact that he made a hell of a lot less money than Kim.)
I think in the case of Pollock, people often judge by the wrong standards, by standards borrowed from other artworks. Pollock's works are decorative and impressive, at least in person. That's pretty much it. They don't have the other content represented in other artists' works.
(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: Freud says that one reason we can love someone is because he embodies for us qualities that we would like to have in ourselves -- an image of our best selves. I have a (fuzzy, unformed) theory that this is how we see art, a lot of the time. It embodies for us qualities that call to us personally. The perfection, the wit, the depth, the accomplished feeling, that we would love to feel about ourselves, but almost never do.
Yes, the human potential portrayed in good art is important. However, not everyone aspires to be an artist, and they can still appreciate art. But, as you said, that's just one reason.
(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: So this is one of art's values. This is one of the things which makes art important. The embodiment of principle. And it's one reason why it's better to like good art than bad or simple-minded art. Attaching yourself to comic book movies keeps you at a lower level than attaching yourself to a genuinely great object.
I have no problem with people relating to art at whatever level it's accessible to them. Chances are good that their tastes will widen over time.
I actually learned to enjoy superhero movies rather late in life.